Mortal Conviction - Another Look

How is that complicated ?
The concept is simple, and Implementing a counter is not necessarily complicated, depending on how the whole thing is done ( it is definitely possible ).

"

Fruz написал:

How is that complicated ?
The concept is simple, and Implementing a counter is not necessarily complicated, depending on how the whole thing is done ( it is definitely possible ).

Well, the one problem I could see with it is - if it stayed 40% less and added in your effect, auras would become virtually "free" after a point, especially if you got enough reduced cost effects for auras. It'd be silly to see people running around with all the auras active again -- that sort of thing should be a rarity. I think it's healthier for the game if players are forced to pick one, two, or at most three auras.

It's also a lot more work to implement and debug - most people would reject it because existing mechanics can be tweaked. Tweaked things that already work are preferred over new things, when it comes to programming -- a lot of cost when it comes to building a game is fixing bugs and QA.

A solution worth thinking about is maybe... a keystone which lets a player run one aura for free, but they cannot run anymore besides that one - or maybe something similar.

Like, what if there were a keystone which significantly reduced mana cost of auras, but had it so every aura past the first had 50% less buff effect - the more auras you tried to stack, the weaker they would be.

No, the first very cheap aura would be the first one, the second one would have a cost high enough to make people really think about it, and the third one would probably not be worth it.
I think that you got it the other way around :p.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Too complicated, therefore unrealistic. Regardless of whether it would fix the problem or not.

I don't think it will be more complicated than basing a damage modifier on range to target (Point Blank).

"

Fruz написал:

No, the first very cheap aura would be the first one, the second one would have a cost high enough to make people really think about it, and the third one would probably not be worth it.
I think that you got it the other way around :p.

Exactly.

"

Baelrog написал:

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Too complicated, therefore unrealistic. Regardless of whether it would fix the problem or not.

I don't think it will be more complicated than basing a damage modifier on range to target (Point Blank).

If by that you mean deliberately concealing the precise mechanics from the player and forcing them to either discover it on their own or look it up in a wiki... then no, I guess it wouldn't be too complicated. But how often should such a method be used?

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

"

Baelrog написал:

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Too complicated, therefore unrealistic. Regardless of whether it would fix the problem or not.

I don't think it will be more complicated than basing a damage modifier on range to target (Point Blank).

If by that you mean deliberately concealing the precise mechanics from the player and forcing them to either discover it on their own or look it up in a wiki... then no, I guess it wouldn't be too complicated. But how often should such a method be used?

Haha, funny because it is true :D

I like your idea about changing CI, that will never happen though because they refuse to change the importance of Shav's since so many "hardcore" streamers have it and would feel cheated if it became non-mandatory in late game.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

If by that you mean deliberately concealing the precise mechanics from the player and forcing them to either discover it on their own or look it up in a wiki... then no, I guess it wouldn't be too complicated. But how often should such a method be used?

Not sure if I'm following you. I didn't comment on, or refer to, Point Blank's unclear wording in any way. That is a whole other discussion, which I don't feel should be discussed in this thread. It was purely comparing the mechanical aspect of Point Blank, which constantly changes the damage factor based on the distance between you and your target. I'm not a programmer, but my guess would be that if they can program a passive to function in that way, programming a passive that changes the aura reservation factor based on the number of aura's you have active should be fairly doable as well. The wording should clear, IMO. Something like the following?:

Mortal Conviction
"The first aura you activate reserves 90% less life. The second aura you activate reserves 70% less life. This trend continues in a similar fashion. Thus, for every following aura you activate, the less life reserved factor is diminished by a flat 20%."

"

Baelrog написал:

Something like the following?:

Mortal Conviction
"The first aura you activate reserves 90% less life. The second aura you activate reserves 70% less life. This trend continues in a similar fashion. Thus, for every following aura you activate, the less life reserved factor is diminished by a flat 20%."

LOL. WAY too long.

I disagree, neither are too long.

If you are too lazy to read a short description like that, then you obviously don't care or don't want to know what a skill does. It's not like the descriptions are getting in the way of anything.